Hannah,
I see your point. However, that is not the rule. There is nothing incorrect about not using a possessive in front of a gerund - at least according to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. In fact there are times when you can't use a possessive in front of a gerund, as in the example I gave.

I agree, the use of a word is not determined by the person who coined it. The company could write a letter asking a newspaper to change "LEGOs" to "LEGO bricks". But I don't see any reason why the newspaper needs to make the change.

A gerund (or "ing" form if you prefer) doesn't take the syntactic place usually occupied by a noun. When I say that a gerund doesn't function as a noun, I mean that you can't replace the gerund with a noun. What if we try to replace "writing" with the noun "composition".

My writing proves I am an entrepreneur.
My composition proves I am an entrepreneur.

My writing books proves I am an entrepreneur.
*My composition books proves I am an entrepreneur.

Gerunds don't take the syntactic slot occupied by nouns, because gerunds take objects, and nouns don't.

GWU, what authority says that only the possessive form in front of a gerund is correct? There are some cases where the possessive just sounds silly, for instance: "There is some chance of our luggage's being lost."

David Teague: You're right that just because something was used in the 17th century, it doesn't make it correct. I cited the quote with "gift" from the 17th century because I was responding to someone who thought it was a new usage.

But you're wrong that "gift" is not a verb. It is a verb, and its first use was "to endow with some power or attribute", which we still find in the past participle "gifted". And you're wrong that it's nonstandard. Both British and American dictionaries treat it as standard. MWDEU on "gift": http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PP1&dq=merriam-websters%20dictionary%20of%20english%20usage&pg=PA477#v=snippet&q=gift&f=false

My car proves that I am a fast driver.
*Me car proves that I am a fast driver.
The second sentence is wrong, because "car" is a noun. But a gerund like "driving" or "writing" is not a noun. So you can't argue that "me driving" is wrong because "me car" is wrong.

As I already said, a personal pronoun tends to be in the possessive form in writing. So something like "my writing books" is more common than "me writing books". But we do find gerunds without possessives used by good English writers. For instance:
"...but I can't see me letting Harold C. condense it" - Flannery O'Connor
"I was glad to hear of the bills being paid" - Harry S. Truman

Read the MDWEU entry that I linked to above.

@scyllacat I think you're missing my point. The usual argument goes something like this: "Gerunds function as nouns, therefore they must be proceeded by possessive pronouns, because nouns are proceeded by possessive pronouns."

My point is that this argument doesn't work, because gerunds don't function as nouns.

You're right that "me" is not an object of anything, but that's irrelevant.

Gerunds are used both with and without possessives in standard English. However, a personal pronoun tends to be in the possessive form in writing. So something like "my writing books" is more common than "me writing books". See the MDWEU link for a thorough discussion.

According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, both "me writing books" and "my writing books" are correct. Both have been used in standard English writing for 300 years.

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=merriam-websters+dictionary+of+english+usage&hl=en&ei=RD1FToOGFqGpsALhjImSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gerund&f=false

imo there is a problem with Purdue's advice. Gerunds don't function as nouns. They have noun-like qualities, and they have verb-like qualities.
The Purdue site shows that gerunds are like nouns by replacing the gerund with a noun, as in:
They do not appreciate my singing.
They do not appreciate my assistance.

But this doesn't always work.
They do not appreciate my singing the national anthem.
*They do not appreciate my assistance the national anthem.

Like verbs, gerunds can take subjects and objects. Here "singing" has an object. Nouns don't have objects.

So the claim that a gerund must be proceeded by the possessive pronoun (my) because it functions as a noun doesn't make sense imo.

It's in the OED, with citations from The Daily Telegraph and The Times (London).

First of all: I made a mistake in my earlier post. "Have got" denotes possession, but "have gotten" denotes obtaining (for many Americans).

Next, Jim, I did give you a "legitimate references that goes further": Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Here's the entry: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PP1&dq=merriam-websters%20dictionary%20of%20english%20usage&pg=PA498#v=onepage&q=have%20got&f=false

You complained that "got" has been stretched to mean present tense possession. It's not much of a stretch to use the present perfect to refer to actions in the present. The fact is that it *is* normal English, and how else can we judge what is acceptable English other than by looking at how good writers use English? And "have got" has been used by good writers, including Austen, Byron and Carroll. It's worth noting that they used it in corresponce, which is why MWDEU says it is more suited to speech and speech-like prose than formal writing.

Jim, of course "have" and "got" belong next to each other. "got" is the past tense, but it's also a past participle.

About the meaning difference between "have" and "have got", Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage notes that for many Americans, "have got" denotes mere possession, but "have" denotes obtaining.